Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 30 November 2011 - 07:35 PM

No one who has a brain and can use his eyes will dispute that climate change is real. Temperatures are going up now and likely will continue to do so. Just as they fell for centuries earlier, they are now on the rebound.

The "adjenda" issue has to do with the cause, not the effect. Certain people with such a motive have claimed "WE" caused it. In fact it is a natural effect and has been going on for millenia, long before "WE" crawled out of the soup. The facts are that it all comes down to politics and money. Consider...

There has always been a segment of society which has been anti-business and pro environment. There has also been a larger segment which has supported socialist and communistic politics. This segment has also been anti business, against private corporations, etc. Until recently the two were somewhat separate.

But with the collapse of communism in much of the world this segment was left out n the cold with nowhere to go. But they did realize they shared their common beliefs against private corporate entities with the environmental movement. And they had considerable money to pump into the mix. So they funded much research in the environmental area, all geared against anything to do with capitalism. So of course the results are going to be skewed toward the ones putting up the money. And the concept of the big evil corporate polluters poisoning the atmosphere and causing global warming was born.

But it has always been that way with all research. Look how many things cause cancer.... The findings HAVE to have negative tendencies; after all if the findings come back positive where is the incentive to do further research? The funding dries up; the program is over. But if, for example, it is found that eating turnips causes cancer then naturally there can be more studies to determine why and what we can do about it. And let's not forget the lawyers who will be looking to start a class action suit against some poor turnip farmer.....It's called motive....

So yes there is fraud in science as it is practiced. But not in TRUE science. True science, if done without prejudice, and with peer review will actually resolve many of these issues. But true science in the global warming arena is fighting an uphill battle.

No one who has a brain and can use his eyes will dispute that climate change is real. Temperatures are going up now and likely will continue to do so. Just as they fell for centuries earlier, they are now on the rebound.

The "adjenda" issue has to do with the cause, not the effect. Certain people with such a motive have claimed "WE" caused it. In fact it is a natural effect and has been going on for millenia, long before "WE" crawled out of the soup. The facts are that it all comes down to politics and money. Consider...

There has always been a segment of society which has been anti-business and pro environment. There has also been a larger segment which has supported socialist and communistic politics. This segment has also been anti business, against private corporations, etc. Until recently the two were somewhat separate.

But with the collapse of communism in much of the world this segment was left out n the cold with nowhere to go. But they did realize they shared their common beliefs against private corporate entities with the environmental movement. And they had considerable money to pump into the mix. So they funded much research in the environmental area, all geared against anything to do with capitalism. So of course the results are going to be skewed toward the ones putting up the money. And the concept of the big evil corporate polluters poisoning the atmosphere and causing global warming was born.

But it has always been that way with all research. Look how many things cause cancer.... The findings HAVE to have negative tendencies; after all if the findings come back positive where is the incentive to do further research? The funding dries up; the program is over. But if, for example, it is found that eating turnips causes cancer then naturally there can be more studies to determine why and what we can do about it. And let's not forget the lawyers who will be looking to start a class action suit against some poor turnip farmer.....It's called motive....

So yes there is fraud in science as it is practiced. But not in TRUE science. True science, if done without prejudice, and with peer review will actually resolve many of these issues. But true science in the global warming arena is fighting an uphill battle.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"In this case, you have blindly responded emotionally without grasping the fact that in relation to “climate change I agree with you, and have explicitly spelled this out in my previous post. "

Did not read that anywhere in your prior posts. You came across as a climate change denier

If that was an emotional response you would not like to see me when I really am. That was not supposed to be read as "blindly emotional," so please stop reading it that way ( I was actually in a sarcastic frame of mind). I still say its a draw.

The high emotional character of what these days masquerades as “scientific debate” continues to confirm and reinforce my observations of the dismal state into which both “science” and “scientists” have fallen.

There are two points in your response that are directly relevant:

First, you seem to think that science is some sort of contest: there are “winners” and there are “losers”; and on issues of science, you can have “a draw”.

Unfortunately, this nonsensical view is held by many “scientists”; they have abandoned any pretence of science being the search for an understanding of the universe and the determination of objective truth.

They view science as little more than a very flexible and negotiable tool to selectively apply in the pursuit of a political or ideological objective.

This is clearly the case in “climate science”: it is a game in which the “winners” are the fraudsters who continue to ride the gravy train and collect the cash; and the “losers” are the dissenters who have their careers trashed, and the taxpayers who foot the bill.

This is clearly illustrated in your second point, in which you accuse me of being a “climate change denier”.

The use of this expression is perhaps the most offensive and evil choice of words ever used in social discourse; in the context of a scientific debate, linking the proponents of scientific argument to one of the most evil acts ever perpetrated by humanity, is beyond evil; it is absolutely abhorrent.

Yet, its use is a calculated and deliberately chosen strategy of the pretend scientists and fraudsters of “The Great Global Warming Scam”.

Its use is unambiguously aimed at deflecting the discussion away from an examination of the facts, and into that of demonising dissenters. It is a coldly cynical operation in silencing dissent by intimidation, coercion and insult.

It is a standard tactic of debate that when one side is lacking facts and losing the argument, to resort to sarcasm, personal attack and intimidation. The weaker the argument, the more shrill and offensive the personal attacks.

In earlier times this was called “dirty pork barrel politics”; these days it is called “climate science”.

If paranormal things happen (and I know they do from capturing significant events on my TV show) then the scientific model for our universe has to comply or deny. The easiest path is to deny or set aside as they did in 350 BC when the Greek philosopher and mathematician, Aristarxus saw the shadow of the EARTH on the Moon and determined the earth was round. Everyone knew it already because the Persians had figured the Earth was dome shaped because they can see the dome when they look at the shape of the Earth from a mountain top. Then even Erastothenes calculates the surface of The EARTH more than a Century after Aristarxus and proves it mathematically. The scientific, more Aristotelian, paradigm insisted there was no proof that could be gathered to verify people's visual sense that the earth was spherical and labeled that and stored it in the belief closet rather than seeking verification.... thus deny... and continue denying even after Galileo, Magellan and Columbus as long as they possibly could. When the Religionists and the Scientists work together they can keep an obvious truth buried for centuries. Now of course there are lots of contradictions between relativistic and quantum physics. Even the great Mr. Einstein tried to bury quantum theories with cooked up papers in his later years. British Physicists not wanting to ruffle Einstein's feathers even held off announcing major breakthroughs in Quantum physics until Mr. Einstein passed. So I like to rely on my own senses and what works as a logical truth rather than try to conform it to a religious paradigm as found in the religion of science or Christianity. However, I do think that it is wonderful when religions and the truth come together on common ground around a paranormal phenomenon.